DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 20, 2023 and May 28, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
evaluation system in Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “system” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “system” is modified by functional language, e.g., generating, by an evaluation system;
The term “system” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
input device in Claim(s) 12, 19, and 20. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “device” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “device” is modified by functional language, e.g., an input device configured to receive feature information;
The term “device” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
calculation device in Claim(s) 12, 16-18, and 20. This limitation is analyzed according to the three prong test for invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) below:
The claim uses the generic placeholder “device” as a substitute for “means”;
The term “device” is modified by functional language, e.g., a calculation device configured to generate complex human digital twin information;
The term “device” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, claim limitation “evaluation system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification describes the functions associated with the “evaluation system,” the specification is devoid of any structure or algorithm for performing said functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 2-11, the claims require the limitations of Claim 1, on which these claims depend, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 12, claim limitation “calculation device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification describes the functions associated with the “calculation device,” the specification is devoid of any structure or algorithm for performing said functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding Claims 13-20, the claims require the limitations of Claim 12, on which these claims depend, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9, 12-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noei et al. (Noei, Vahid, and Heba Lakany. "Analysis of movement of an elbow joint with a wearable robotic exoskeleton Using OpenSim software." In 2022 44th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 4342-4345. IEEE, 2022.), hereinafter Noei.
Regarding Claim 1, Noei teaches A method of evaluating performance of a wearable muscle enhancement device (“Robotic exoskeleton models and simulation software packages are used to provide a digital twin to facilitate motion analysis, motion prediction, forward and inverse dynamics as well as kinematics calculations.”) (e.g., page 1, column 2, paragraph 4)
the method comprising: generating, by an evaluation system, complex human digital twin information on the basis of feature information of a person (“The simulation includes six muscles as shown in Figure 1 left panel: (1) TriLong: Triceps brachii (long head), (2) TriLat: Triceps brachii (lateral head), (3) TriMed: Triceps brachii (medial head), (4) BicLong: Biceps brachii (long head), (5) BciShort: Biceps brachii (short head), (6) Brac: brachialis. Fig 1 right panel illustrates the 6 muscles simulated in OpenSim.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 1).
generating, by the evaluation system, complex device digital twin information on the basis of feature information of a wearable muscle enhancement device (“The model is built in five steps. In the first step, the structural features for the exoskeleton are sketched in inventor software [16] as shown in Figure 2. Using OpenSim Software, the model is exported to a file in "stl" format.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 2).
creating, by the evaluation system, a virtual human wearing a virtual wearable muscle enhancement device on the basis of the complex human digital twin information and the complex device digital twin information (“Figure 2 Simulation of the worn robotic exoskeleton for upper limb visualised in OpenSim”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, figure 2).
performing, by the evaluation system, a simulation in which the virtual human uses the virtual wearable muscle enhancement device (“In the fifth and last step, the mentioned simulated exoskeleton is used to perform an elbow flexion and extension which will enable us to generate simulated muscle activity data when the exoskeleton is worn that can be then compared to benchmark EMG datasets.”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 3).
and calculating a state variable of the virtual human using the virtual wearable muscle enhancement device (“Forces and moments are estimated using forward dynamics in the simulation using the equation (1) representing multibody dynamics.” Forces and moments are state variables.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 3).
and evaluating, by the evaluation system, performance of the wearable muscle enhancement device on the basis of the state variable (“Figure 3 illustrates the muscles recruited during flexion and extension, red denotes agonist, i.e. muscle contracting and blue denotes antagonist, i.e. muscles relaxing/lengthening.”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, last paragraph; page 3, column 2, figure 3).
Regarding Claim 2, Noei teaches The method of claim 1. Noei further teaches wherein the state variable includes muscles of a musculoskeletal model of the virtual human (“Outcome parameters were the user’s required knee flexor and extensor torque, joint contact force, muscle impulse, and interaction forces in the virtual HMS.”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 1).
a joint angle of the virtual human (“Figure 4 illustrates elbow joint extension/flexion in degrees versus time in seconds starting at 90 degrees, where 0 degrees corresponds to full elbow extension when the exoskeleton is worn.”) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 1; page 3, column 2, figure 4).
a direction of force at a joint of the virtual human (“Forces and moments are estimated using forward dynamics in the simulation using the equation (1) representing multibody dynamics.”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 3).
and an electromyogram at the joint of the virtual human (“In the fifth and last step, the mentioned simulated exoskeleton is used to perform an elbow flexion and extension which will enable us to generate simulated muscle activity data when the exoskeleton is worn that can be then compared to benchmark EMG datasets.”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Noei teaches The method of claim 1. Noei further teaches wherein the calculating of the state variable comprises: receiving, by the evaluation system, functional logic information required for the virtual human to perform a predefined motion (“Forces and moments are estimated using forward dynamics in the simulation using the equation (1) representing multibody dynamics.” Equation (1) is interpreted as functional logic information.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 3 and equation (1)).
causing, by the evaluation system, the virtual human to perform the predefined motion on the basis of the functional logic information (“Figure 3 Muscle recruitment during elbow flexion (top panels) and extension (bottom panels) Red denotes agonist and blue denotes antagonist.” The red arrows in figure 3 illustrate the movement of the digital twin.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, figure 3).
and detecting, by the evaluation system, a cognitive processing ability and motion-specific state variables on the basis of a result of performing the predefined motion (“therefore, we can calculate the moments due to muscle forces, muscle contraction and activation dynamics.” Muscle activation dynamics are interpreted as cognitive processing ability, and moments due to muscle forces are motion-specific state variables.) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 12, Noei teaches A device for evaluating performance of a wearable muscle enhancement device (“Robotic exoskeleton models and simulation software packages are used to provide a digital twin to facilitate motion analysis, motion prediction, forward and inverse dynamics as well as kinematics calculations.” Simulation software is interpreted as computer software, wherein the computer is a device.) (e.g., page 1, column 2, paragraph 4).
the device comprising: an input device configured to receive feature information of a person and feature information of a wearable muscle enhancement device; and a calculation device (“Several simulation software packages are currently available for analysis and computation, with OpenSim software among the most effective [11]. Many researchers in the field of biomechanics and orthopedics as well as people interested in human or animal movement use OpenSim as a standard tool to implement musculoskeletal modelling on the target body part(s).”) (e.g., page 1, column 2, paragraph 4).
The remaining limitations of Claim 12 recite substantially similar material to Claim 1, and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 13 and 20, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 2 and 9, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4, 10-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noei in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang, Longbin, Yixing Liu, Ruoli Wang, Christian Smith, and Elena M. Gutierrez-Farewik. "Modeling and simulation of a human knee exoskeleton's assistive strategies and interaction." Frontiers in neurorobotics 15 (2021): 620928.), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding Claim 3, Noei teaches The method of claim 1. However, Noei does not appear to specifically teach wherein the feature information of the person includes at least one of a sex of the person, a size of each body joint of the person, a length of each body joint of the person, a thickness of each body joint of the person, and a perimeter of each body joint of the person.
On the other hand, Zhang, which relates similarly as a method for simulating an exoskeleton, does teach wherein the feature information of the person includes at least one of a sex of the person, a size of each body joint of the person, a length of each body joint of the person, a thickness of each body joint of the person, and a perimeter of each body joint of the person (The Examiner notes the use of at least one of, and the prior art teaches a thickness of each body joint. “lateral and medial knee compartments, respectively; rl and rm are the lateral and medial condyle moment arms, respectively, and were estimated based on reported ratios of the condylar width relative to the knee width (Richards et al., 2018),“ Condylar width and knee width are interpreted as body joint thickness.) (e.g., page 3, column 2, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Noei with Zhang. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Noei teaches a method for simulating an exoskeleton on a musculoskeletal model. However, Noei does not specifically teach specific exoskeleton and musculoskeletal feature information, or evaluating the wearability of the exoskeleton based on a value. On the other hand, Zhang, which relates similarly as a method for modeling an exoskeleton on a digital twin, does teach specific feature information and evaluating the wearability of the exoskeleton based on quantitative values. As both Noei and Zhang teach modeling an exoskeleton using a digital twin (e.g., Noei, page 1, column 1, paragraph 2; Zhang, page 1, abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods. In combination, the simulation of Noei and the feature information and wearability analysis of Zhang merely perform the same function as they do separately. Considering that Noei and Zhang both perform exoskeleton modeling using a digital twin, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of combining Noei with Zhang as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Noei with Zhang in order to provide further customization and analysis to the simulation of Noei.
Regarding Claim 4, Noei teaches The method of claim 1. However, Noei does not appear to teach wherein the feature information of the wearable muscle enhancement device includes at least one of a size of the wearable muscle enhancement device, a weight of the wearable muscle enhancement device, and a wearing position of the wearable muscle enhancement device.
On the other hand, Zhang, which relates similarly as a method for simulating an exoskeleton, does teach wherein the feature information of the wearable muscle enhancement device includes at least one of a size of the wearable muscle enhancement device, a weight of the wearable muscle enhancement device, and a wearing position of the wearable muscle enhancement device (“A CAD (Solidworks) model of a physical knee exoskeleton (Figure 1) was made, consisting of a Brushless DC motor (EC 90 flat _90mm90W;Maxon, Munich, Germany), a gear reducer (Planetary Gearhead GP 52C,Maxon,Munich,Germany), a bevel gear to change the direction of applied torque, thigh and shank cuffs, knee joint connection, and strap bases. The varied assistive torque generated by the exoskeleton was modeled as an ideal torque. Mass, moment of inertia, and damping of the exoskeleton components were incorporated into the virtual HMS.”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Noei with Zhang for the same reasons as in Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 10, Noei teaches The method of claim 9. However, Noei does not appear to specifically teach wherein the evaluating of the performance of the wearable muscle enhancement device comprises evaluating the performance of the wearable muscle enhancement device by calculating wearability, usability, and interactivity of the wearable muscle enhancement device
On the other hand, Zhang, which relates similarly as a method for simulating an exoskeleton, does teach wherein the evaluating of the performance of the wearable muscle enhancement device comprises evaluating the performance of the wearable muscle enhancement device by calculating wearability, usability, and interactivity of the wearable muscle enhancement device (“we specifically focused on the knee in normal gait, and adapted three common but conceptually different assistive strategies at the knee joint, namely [rotational actuator (RA)], [simple pendulum model (SPM)], and [damped pendulum model (DPM)] strategies, to determine whether any potential benefit to the user could be identified. We found that the RA-based assistive controller could only reduce the user’s required knee extensor torque and muscle impulse by a small amount. The SPM- and DPM-based assistive controllers reduced the user’s required knee flexor torque and muscle impulse more than RA-based controller, with lower joint compressive contact force, but with higher interaction forces. These findings suggest that joint rotational direction should be considered, and that a potential trade-off between interaction forces and physiological torque should be considered when designing an exoskeleton controller. In addition, a damping component in a pendulum-based assistive strategy could further affect the impact on the user.”) (e.g., page 6, column 2, paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Noei with Zhang for the same reasons as in Claim 3, above.
Regarding Claim 11, Noei in view of Zhang teaches The method of claim 10. Zhang further teaches wherein the evaluating of the performance of the wearable muscle enhancement device comprises: calculating, by the evaluation system, a quantitative index on the basis of the cognitive processing ability and the motion-specific state variables (“Muscle impulse, required physiological knee torque, joint contact forces, and interaction forces were computed through inverse dynamic analysis.” Muscle impulse is interpreted as a quantitative value based on cognitive processing ability. Knee torque is interpreted as a quantitative value based on motion-specific state variables.) (e.g., page 5, column 2, last paragraph).
calculating, by the evaluation system, the wearability, the usability, and the interactivity on the basis of the quantitative index (“we specifically focused on the knee in normal gait, and adapted three common but conceptually different assistive strategies at the knee joint, namely [rotational actuator (RA)], [simple pendulum model (SPM)], and [damped pendulum model (DPM)] strategies, to determine whether any potential benefit to the user could be identified.” Figures 4 and 6 illustrate the benefit of the assistive strategies by comparing the simulated muscle impulse and joint torque of each assistive strategy.) (e.g., page 6, column 2, paragraph 2; page 7, figures 4 and 5).
and evaluating, by the evaluation system, the performance of the wearable muscle enhancement device on the basis of the calculated wearability, usability, and interactivity (“we specifically focused on the knee in normal gait, and adapted three common but conceptually different assistive strategies at the knee joint, namely [rotational actuator (RA)], [simple pendulum model (SPM)], and [damped pendulum model (DPM)] strategies, to determine whether any potential benefit to the user could be identified.” Figures 4 and 6 illustrate the benefit of the assistive strategies by comparing the simulated muscle impulse and joint torque of each assistive strategy.) (e.g., page 6, column 2, paragraph 2; page 7, figures 4 and 5). Noei teaches a method for simulating an exoskeleton on a musculoskeletal model. However, Noei does not appear to specifically teach
Regarding Claims 14 and 15, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 3 and 4, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noei in view of Cox et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0203020 A1), hereinafter Cox.
Regarding Claim 5, Noei teaches The method of claim 1. Noei further teaches generating, by the evaluation system, the complex human digital twin information on the basis of the extracted information, (“The simulation includes six muscles as shown in Figure 1 left panel: (1) TriLong: Triceps brachii (long head), (2) TriLat: Triceps brachii (lateral head), (3) TriMed: Triceps brachii (medial head), (4) BicLong: Biceps brachii (long head), (5) BciShort: Biceps brachii (short head), (6) Brac: brachialis. Fig 1 right panel illustrates the 6 muscles simulated in OpenSim.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 1).
wherein the information required for the complex human digital twin includes at least one of statics data of a basic musculoskeletal model, nature and magnitude data of dynamic force of the musculoskeletal model, length information of each body joint (anatomical landmarks), myofunctional performance, three-dimensional (3D) model information of a human body, and a cognitive processing ability (The Examiner notes the use of at least one, and the prior art teaches statics data and dynamic forces. “Forces and moments are estimated using forward dynamics in the simulation using the equation (1) representing multibody dynamics.”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 3).
However, Noei does not appear to specifically teach wherein the generating of the complex human digital twin information comprises: converting, by the evaluation system, the feature information of the person into parameters; searching, by the evaluation system, a human digital twin database for a human digital twin on the basis of the parameters [and] extracting, by the evaluation system, information required for a complex human digital twin from a found human digital twin.
On the other hand, Cox, which relates similarly as a method for creating a personalized digital twin of a person, does teach wherein the generating of the complex human digital twin information comprises: converting, by the evaluation system, the feature information of the person into parameters (“the method 100 proceeds to operation 103 in which the processor arrangement 22 receives the user information pertaining to the person 10 from the user interface 40, e.g. through the data communication module 24. This input data is used by the processor arrangement to select the digital model from the database 30 that best matches the anatomy of the person 10. The input data may comprise information such as the gender, age, weight, lifestyle information, imaging data, physiological measurements (such as EEG, ECG, EMG, blood pressure, skin conductance, etc.), lab test data and so on, as previously explained.”) (e.g., paragraph [0040]).
searching, by the evaluation system, a human digital twin database for a human digital twin on the basis of the parameters (“In operation 105, the processor arrangement 22 accesses the database 30, e.g. through the data communication module 24, and searches the database to find a digital model that best matches the input data received in operation 103.”) (e.g., paragraph [0041]).
extracting, by the evaluation system, information required for a complex human digital twin from a found human digital twin (“Next, the processor arrangement 22 personalizes the selected digital model in operation 107 such that this model more closely resembles the anatomy and its physiological condition of the person 10.”) (e.g., paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Noei with Cox. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Noei teaches a method for simulating an exoskeleton on a musculoskeletal model. However, Noei does not appear to specifically teach a database and searching said database for human digital twin and exoskeleton digital twin information. On the other hand, Cox, which relates similarly as a method for generating a personalized digital twin of a person, does teach a database and searching said database for a human digital twin. Furthermore, the database may be used in functionally the same way to search for exoskeleton digital twins. As both Noei and Cox relate to generating digital twins of people (e.g., Noei, page 1, column 1, paragraph 2; Cox, abstract), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods. In combination, the simulation of Noei and the database of Cox merely perform the same function as they do separately. Considering that both Noei and Cox relate to digital twins of humans, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of combining Noei with Cox as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Noei with Cox in order to manage human and exoskeleton digital twin data.
Regarding Claim 6, Noei teaches The method of claim 1. Noei further teaches generating, by the evaluation system, the complex device digital twin information on the basis of the extracted information (“The model is built in five steps. In the first step, the structural features for the exoskeleton are sketched in inventor software [16] as shown in Figure 2. Using OpenSim Software, the model is exported to a file in "stl" format.”) (e.g., page 2, column 2, paragraph 2).
wherein the information required for the complex device digital twin includes at least one of device size data, wearing data, data of a sensor included in the device, actuator data, and a function of processing device control logic information (The Examiner notes the use of at least one of, and the prior art teaches actuator data. “After defining the body parts and joints, the actuator force values are applied in OpenSim ForceSet parameter.”) (e.g., page 3, column 1, paragraph 2).
However, Noei does not appear to specifically teach wherein the generating of the complex device digital twin information comprises: converting, by the evaluation system, the feature information of the wearable muscle enhancement device into parameters; searching, by the evaluation system, a device digital twin database for a device digital twin on the basis of the parameters; extracting, by the evaluation system, information required for a complex device digital twin from a found device digital twin;
On the other hand, Cox, which relates similarly as a method for creating a personalized digital twin of a person, does teach wherein the generating of the complex device digital twin information comprises: converting, by the evaluation system, the feature information of the wearable muscle enhancement device into parameters; (“the method 100 proceeds to operation 103 in which the processor arrangement 22 receives the user information pertaining to the person 10 from the user interface 40, e.g. through the data communication module 24. This input data is used by the processor arrangement to select the digital model from the database 30 that best matches the anatomy of the person 10.” The input data may be the exoskeleton data of Noei, and may be used in the database of Cox to find a similar digital twin in the same way.) (e.g., paragraph [0040]).
searching, by the evaluation system, a device digital twin database for a device digital twin on the basis of the parameters (“In operation 105, the processor arrangement 22 accesses the database 30, e.g. through the data communication module 24, and searches the database to find a digital model that best matches the input data received in operation 103.”) (e.g., paragraph [0041]).
extracting, by the evaluation system, information required for a complex device digital twin from a found device digital twin (“Next, the processor arrangement 22 personalizes the selected digital model in operation 107 such that this model more closely resembles the anatomy and its physiological condition of the person 10.”) (e.g., paragraph [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Noei with Cox for the same reasons as in Claim 5, above.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 5 and 6, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noei in view of Szul (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0054848 A1), hereinafter Szul.
Regarding Claim 7, Noei teaches The method of claim 1. However, Noei does not appear to specifically teach temporarily verifying, by the evaluation system, whether wearing the virtual wearable muscle enhancement device causes the human digital twin discomfort, wherein the temporarily verifying of whether wearing the virtual wearable muscle enhancement device causes the human digital twin discomfort comprises comparing a size of the virtual human and a size of the virtual wearable muscle enhancement device to determine whether there is a difference of a reference value or more.
On the other hand, Szul, which relates similarly as a method for using a virtual application to optimize the fitting of wearables, does teach temporarily verifying, by the evaluation system, whether wearing the virtual wearable muscle enhancement device causes the human digital twin discomfort (“There may be cases where a person may rely on the wearable as they are growing up, that is they change with time. In such cases, relevant data and feedback during the fitting process can be incorporated into decision-making as to device/sensor placement, overall wearable's size, comfort, etc.”) (e.g., paragraph [0104]).
wherein the temporarily verifying of whether wearing the virtual wearable muscle enhancement device causes the human digital twin discomfort comprises comparing a size of the virtual human and a size of the virtual wearable muscle enhancement device to determine whether there is a difference of a reference value or more (“The avatar can then illustrate any aspects of the wearer-wearable interaction that should be modified or changed, whether it is that a particular module of the wearable should be swapped for another or instructions to the wearer as to how certain actions may affect wearability, recommendations of different setting depending on the attire or activity, functionality and comfort. The avatar can be used to illustrate if the wearable is too tight, too loose, just right, and also alert of any changes to the wearer's body size or shape.” A wearable being too loose or tight is interpreted as a difference between the wearable size and wearer’s size.) (e.g., paragraph [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Noei with Szul. The claimed invention is considered to be merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Noei teaches a method for simulating an exoskeleton on a musculoskeletal model. However, Noei does not appear to specifically teach determining if a wearable causes a human digital twin discomfort and re-acquiring feature information. On the other hand, Szul, which relates similarly as a method for optimizing a fit of wearables, does teach determining if a wearable causes discomfort, and re-acquiring feature information. Furthermore, while Szul does not explicitly recite “digital twin,” Szul uses “a patient avatar or a patient realistic 3D image” (e.g., Szul, paragraph [0021]), which is functionally a digital twin. As Noei also uses a digital twin to model an exoskeleton (e.g., Noei, page 1, column 1, paragraph 2), one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the comfort analysis of Szul with the simulation of Noei. In combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination as predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the Applicant's claimed invention to combine Noei with Szul in order to also evaluate the comfort of an exoskeleton and modify the exoskeleton design based on comfort.
Regarding Claim 8, Noei in view of Szul teaches The method of claim 7. Szul further teaches the method further comprising, when there is a problem in a result of temporarily verifying whether wearing the virtual wearable muscle enhancement device causes the human digital twin discomfort, receiving feature information of a person and feature information of the wearable muscle enhancement device again (“A user, wo can be the wearer or another person in wearer's care network, can manipulate objects and score different configurations according to comfort level, for example.” Manipulating objects is interpreted as comprising re-receiving feature information.) (e.g., paragraph [0098]).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to Claims 7 and 8, respectively, and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE HWA-KAI TSENG whose telephone number is (571)272-3731. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9A-5P PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen can be reached at (571) 272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.H.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2189
/REHANA PERVEEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189
